# So, I started with joke and people took it seriously. What can be done with the question?

Today, I got idea for a joke. Worldbuilding moderators are taking over the world!

So, I posted it as a question

Inspired by Facebook sysadmins preventing Cthulhu, my original idea was, that joke about computers, sysadmins, moderators and what could people do about it, is inside scope of Worldbuilding.

Apparently, 5 close votes and +7/-4 score says, that rest of community does not think so.

It even produced one user thinking, that my original premise is actually true and they posted an answer hinting, that freedom of speech is being taken away from users.

For outside readers: Please note, that my question was put on hold by regular users and not by moderators

Worst part is, that my inner editor cannot find anything outside of scope on question "how to prevent group of people to do X"

What can be done to improve such question?

• my original idea was... it is inside scope of Worldbuilding...? But the original question's title ended with (Soon to be on-hold) Feb 22 '17 at 13:25
• @Zxyrra which was one of the jokes I purposely inteded to make Did you vote to close just because the title? Feb 22 '17 at 13:26
• If you're acknowledging that it's off-topic - not about building a fictional world - in the question - it seems safe to assume it can be closed as such. Feb 22 '17 at 13:27
• @Zxyrra so... you really voted to close just because the title? Are you aware that you can either edit the question or downvote it if it has poor quality but is inside the scope? And no. I did not acknowledge anywhere it is off topic. Do you understand joke? Geez. Feb 22 '17 at 13:29
• I understand that the content is a joke, and it's funny. I even edited to add a mini-joke to the answer. But a sarcastic to be put on-hold looks no different than a serious to be put on-hold when typed out; it's better to assume people won't look for a hidden meaning and they will read it for what it says. Feb 22 '17 at 13:32
• @Zxyrra No harm being done, I cooled down. The crucial question is: If that question had different title, would it be on-topic? And why? Feb 22 '17 at 13:33
• Regardless of the title, the question never references a fictional world. It doesn't construct a setting or give context like on-topic questions; it specifically references current events. That seems like grounds to believe it's not about building a world. If you want it to be about a "fictional world" then build the question around one. Feb 22 '17 at 13:33
• @Zxyrra so, you are saying, that Worldbuilding moderators are actually trying to take over the world? Because the question is set in current Earth? Feb 22 '17 at 13:37
• No(t necessarily), but paint a picture as if you're using that info in a story Feb 22 '17 at 23:16
• I would have voted to close it as "Off topic: set in a specific world". :-)
– SRM
Feb 24 '17 at 6:43
• I judge only by the title because have chosen not to read once I saw the Q, so I may exaggerate. Because it is not a joke. There are enough places where mods have ruined communities and all fun for those communities, and a lot of people had such experience. The absurdity of the situation in the case does not necessary make it a good joke. I can make few similar jokes, but they are about dead human corpses and war, so they well NSFW and 40+ kinda jokes, and those situations actually happened or easy can be happened - so I will not make those jokes here in the comment and probably nowhere too. Mar 1 '17 at 7:08

Firstly, I make no secret of the fact that I loved your question, and I also celebrate every small gleam of humour I see on this mainly dry site.

I think there's two points here

1. It's not really a WB scoped question
2. Allowing one satirical question would inevitably allow others to follow and closing those questions down as off-topic becomes harder

To improve this, I guess you'd need to create some kind of fiction or allegory that simulates what you want (resisting some kind of controlling order).

But then, this question has more of a meaning to "insiders" than general users of WB who don't really care who the moderators are and easily confuse them with high-rep users.

Basically, you might get more of an uptake posting it in Meta, which is a bit boring and doesn't get much exposure.

Or set your question on a starship

• +1 for the starship question. " Any resemblance to other worlbuilding sites (living or dead) is purely coincidental "
– user20258
Feb 22 '17 at 15:58
• Question was edited ! Let's reopen it !
– user20258
Feb 23 '17 at 13:32

I really enjoyed your joke.

And I voted to put it on hold. Not because it was bad, but because it was off-topic and I'd rather not see this site to become "anything goes".

The main difference is that question that inspired you was built around pretty solid worldbuilding idea that written / stored text might count as a prayer, and this prayer can do specific magic. This would be consistent with Cthulhu myths and even with some real world religions. Your question lacks such point.

What I would do, if it was my question, would be to vote to put it on hold and then flag for moderator's attention and ask to close it. Actually, I did VTC my own questions on Stack Exchange network on several occasions. Consider it, maybe that's what you should do? I mean, if you share my concerns. You would keep all the reputation earned and it wouldn't get deleted (way too upvoted for deletion).

If not, then either try to put something that could plausibly help mods to take over the world (if, for example, there was a supernatural being granting superpowers based on your impact on the Internet?), or ask what situations could allow that. But, to be honest, it would be pretty hard to do without making it a chameleon question now, when there are answers posted.

• Someone has to hold the line. Worldbuilding is a high quality site, if you find a much viewed or much voted on question, it is well written and with good 'correct' answers. You can't say the same about Yahoo answers or Quora or whatever. Stay in ranks and keep your pike lowered, soldier, we'll drive the silliness off of this site someday :) Mar 1 '17 at 1:24